Apple CEO Tim Cook: Steve “taught me that the joy is in the journey”

Cook spoke at All Things D about Jobs, China, patents, and more.

Steve Jobs taught Apple CEO Tim Cook to "never ask what he would do," Cook said on stage at the 10th annual All Things D conference on Tuesday. "Just do what's right. And so I'm doing that."

Cook took the opportunity to reflect upon the lessons he learned from Jobs before his death last October, explaining that the founder never wanted Cook to dwell on what he would have wanted after he died. Instead, Jobs wanted Cook to avoid thinking about the past and instead look to the future, focusing on creating the next great thing.

"When he called me to his home to talk about being the CEO and subsequently the discussions we had, he told me, 'I witnessed what happened at Disney when Walt passed away,'" Cook said. "He said that people would go to meetings, and all sit around and talk about, what would Walt have done? How would he view this? And he looked at me with those intense eyes that only he had, and he told me to never do that, to never ask what he would do. Just do what's right. And so I'm doing that."

Cook has faced a number of challenges since he took over last August, from the latest iPhone and iPad launches to dealing with the public relations "situation" over Apple's suppliers in China. Cook answered questions related to new products and China predictably, implying that there are interesting things to come when WWDC begins in 1.5 weeks, and that the company's dealings in China are often more complex than casual users realize.

"People focus on the final assembly, because that's the part where people look at it and say 'That's an iPhone,'" he said. "They don't think of all the parts underneath that add significant value. So on assembly, could it be done in the US? I hope so some day. The tool and die maker skill in the US began to go down in the '60s and '70s. How many tool and die makers do you know now? We couldn't fill a room. In China you'd need several cities."

Cook also expounded upon accusations that Apple rips off other companies when it comes to the development of products like the iPhone and the iPad. "People accuse us of lots of things," Cook told the audience. "When you look at those, the vast majority of those are on standard essential patents, and this is an area where the patent system is broken today." Cook went on to explain that he believes other companies are trying to use the court system to extract high license fees for so-called fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms, saying that he believes Apple has "not sued anyone over standards essential patents that we own, because we view that it's fundamentally wrong to do that."

"The problem is, if you add up what they say the patents are worth, nobody could be in the phone business. So, it's gotten kind of crazy," Cook said.

Predictably, Cook avoided questions about the company's upcoming announcements, but said that Apple plans to "double down on secrecy" regarding its upcoming products. Whether that will actually happen remains a mystery, but Cook made sure to emphasize that the company may not always do everything right, but it's going to do its best to enjoy doing what it believes in.

"You could have an S on your chest and a cape on your back and not be capable of doing everything," Cook said. "[Steve] also taught me that the joy is in the journey, which was a revelation for me. And he taught all of us that life is fragile, and that we're not guaranteed tomorrow, so give it everything you've got."

Further reading:

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

78 Reader Comments

Are these kinds of fluff pieces actually paid for by Apple? I see a lot of them on tech sites, and I'm thinking they have to be. Apple is the same company that sues people for rectangular phones, we don't really need explanations for who they sue, we hear about it already.

If you're a high-profile CEO of an extremely valuable and high-profile company speaking at a large, high-profile conference, then I expect that many tech sites are going to cover the event if they want to be seen as containing high-profile content.

Apple's the big rage nowadays so fluff pieces are going to continue appearing on this site.

Are these kinds of fluff pieces actually paid for by Apple? I see a lot of them on tech sites, and I'm thinking they have to be. Apple is the same company that sues people for rectangular phones, we don't really need explanations for who they sue, we hear about it already.

And yet I don't suspect that comments like your are paid for by Apple's competitors, even though I see them repeated many times in every Apple story. If I did think such a thing, I'd be good enough to look for proof before making an allegation like that. Y'know, basic decency and all that.

Interesting bit in the Macworld live blog about US components in the iDevices. The glass is from the US, the 'engine' (the CPU, I imagine) is from the US and Apple keep looking to see if they can source from the US. Those people who cry "more for the US" should be pleased by that. Now those people just need to get the infrastructure in place for companies to bring manufacturing back to the US.

If you're a high-profile CEO of an extremely valuable and high-profile company speaking at a large, high-profile conference, then I expect that many tech sites are going to cover the event if they want to be seen as containing high-profile content.

Apple's the big rage nowadays so fluff pieces are going to continue appearing on this site.

Well the issue many people miss is that Ars has an increased vested interest to promote Apple products, namely iPads and iPhones. Conde Nast charges significant additional premiums to advertisers trying to reach consumers with iOS devices versus all other devices with their e-magazine publications. They even charge an extra fee for advertisements optimized for Retina displays.

Are these kinds of fluff pieces actually paid for by Apple? I see a lot of them on tech sites, and I'm thinking they have to be. Apple is the same company that sues people for rectangular phones, we don't really need explanations for who they sue, we hear about it already.

And yet I don't suspect that comments like your are paid for by Apple's competitors, even though I see them repeated many times in every Apple story. If I did think such a thing, I'd be good enough to look for proof before making an allegation like that. Y'know, basic decency and all that.

Well the issue many people miss is that Ars has an increased vested interest to promote Apple products, namely iPads and iPhones. Conde Nast charges significant additional premiums to advertisers trying to reach consumers with iOS devices versus all other devices with their e-magazine publications. They even charge an extra fee for advertisements optimized for Retina displays.

So yes, the fluffing will continue.

It's been stated many times that Ars publishes articles about Apple because people read them, just like you are doing. So thanks!

They have the patent. They have a right to defend it. If you think the patent is invalid, then whoever they are fighting with can try to prove it invalid. If the system is broke, Apple didn't break it. Until it is fixed by whatever standard would make YOU happy, do you really think they, Google (who dropped 12 billion on Moto for guess what? Patents) and everyone else are not going to use it? Companies exist for one thing, to make money for their share holders. Not make whiney geeks like you happy

sprockkets wrote:

Yes Tim, let's just focus on FRAND patents and not the other BS software patents that you and others throw around in the industry to stifle competition. That part is *clearly* not broken.

It's news It happened today. One of his first public speaking engagements since he took over the word most valuable company. That is news. This is Tech news site. They reported it. Understand? Ars was not asking the questions.

Q1DM6 wrote:

Are these kinds of fluff pieces actually paid for by Apple? I see a lot of them on tech sites, and I'm thinking they have to be. Apple is the same company that sues people for rectangular phones, we don't really need explanations for who they sue, we hear about it already.

Yes Tim, let's just focus on FRAND patents and not the other BS software patents that you and others throw around in the industry to stifle competition. That part is *clearly* not broken.

They have the patent. They have a right to defend it. If you think the patent is invalid, then whoever they are fighting with can try to prove it invalid. If the system is broke, Apple didn't break it. Until it is fixed by whatever standard would make YOU happy, do you really think they, Google (who dropped 12 billion on Moto for guess what? Patents) and everyone else are not going to use it? Companies exist for one thing, to make money for their share holders. Not make whiney geeks like you happy

Apple doesn't have to sue, even if they hold the patent. They can use it only defensively, which seems to be Google's benign patent methodology.

Having said that, Tim Cook stated that Apple have "not sued anyone over standards essential patents that we own" which is a different path and one that could be defended as reasonable. Can anyone point to a case where Apple sued over a patent that was essential for a phone to work? I can only think of things that can be designed around (and notice that the great majority of Android phones don't attract Apple's legal ire because they're not designed to be an iPhone wannabe, but are unique Android phones and proud of it).

They have the patent. They have a right to defend it. If you think the patent is invalid, then whoever they are fighting with can try to prove it invalid. If the system is broke, Apple didn't break it. Until it is fixed by whatever standard would make YOU happy, do you really think they, Google (who dropped 12 billion on Moto for guess what? Patents) and everyone else are not going to use it? Companies exist for one thing, to make money for their share holders. Not make whiney geeks like you happy

Thank you for your pointless strawman argument. I know, it's geeky since another nerdy person, Bill gates also wanted to have a patent system that isn't abused as well. How shallow of me.

I expect nothing more from a person who's posted only 78 times here (who also uses OSX and iOS and therefore can't be geeky).

Oh, but look, the foe system is working again, I won't have to put up with your drivel anymore.

>Having said that, Tim Cook stated that Apple have "not sued anyone over standards essential patents that we own" which is a different path and one that could be defended as reasonable. Can anyone point to a case where Apple sued over a patent that was essential for a phone to work? I can only think of things that can be designed around (and notice that the great majority of Android phones don't attract Apple's legal ire because they're not designed to be an iPhone wannabe, but are unique Android phones and proud of it).

Nokia sued them using patents essential to making a working cell phone.

I liked the article. I'm not a huge fan of apple's practices, I don't particularly like their ecosystem. But this isn't the arena for 'why I read Apple articles', surely? Nobody is FORCING you to click 'read this article', it's up front and open about the topic (Apple CEO Tim Cook: ...) so your problems with 'Ars is an Apple Site' mantra is that you just can't help yourself and HAVE to click.

Honestly, if Ars Staff mentioned Apple Pie in an article, a slew of users would accuse them of Apple Bias in their reporting

Personally, I'm looking forward to the upcoming shower of Apple reporting during and immediately after the yearly conference. I think Ars does a great job in keeping people informed. That you don't want to know is utterly irrelevant, and the solution is in your face -- just skip articles which you feel don't INFORM you of anything. In other words, grow up.

"Well the issue many people miss is that Ars has an increased vested interest to promote Apple products, namely iPads and iPhones. Conde Nast charges significant additional premiums to advertisers trying to reach consumers with iOS devices versus all other devices with their e-magazine publications. They even charge an extra fee for advertisements optimized for Retina displays.

So yes, the fluffing will continue. ?"

Wow I did not even think of that.. I had to delete the feed because of the "fluff".

Ars should really make it easy for the Apple haters to simply not see stories concerning the worlds most valuable technology company in the main feed. They seem not not comprehend that has been the Infinity Loop section for years and that every report on Apple is not some web hit driven conspiracy now that they have obliterated most of competition. That reporting on it is actually NEWS. Which is why some of come here.

Not having to navigate the nonsensical posts of "why was this story reported" easier for people who have an interest in news the of worlds most valuable technology company.

Maybe it could be called the "Ars Lite" section with a monkey covering its eyes, ears and hopefully mouth.

2] Steve leftTim and now us some great life advice... why don't we all heed it?

That's the fluff I find so ridiculous.

The article title and the first three and final paragraphs, about a third of the article content, has to be about the blessings of Jobs. Hard to say that Apple and Cook have moved out of his shadow, when they can't seem to open their mouths without saying "it's ok, it's what Steve would have wanted".

>Having said that, Tim Cook stated that Apple have "not sued anyone over standards essential patents that we own" which is a different path and one that could be defended as reasonable. Can anyone point to a case where Apple sued over a patent that was essential for a phone to work? I can only think of things that can be designed around (and notice that the great majority of Android phones don't attract Apple's legal ire because they're not designed to be an iPhone wannabe, but are unique Android phones and proud of it).

Nokia sued them using patents essential to making a working cell phone.

yes they did, I recall Apple tried to stiff them and used their patents without paying a single cent of licensing and only after a couple years of negotitations did Nokia finally follow with a suit. Nokia won that I recall.

But more importantly, asking if there was a case of Apple bringing suit against anyone for using Essential phone patents, that is really a bit off isn't it. Apple barely has any essential phone patents; if they even have any at all. They have patents related to the iphone, most or none of it essential and none of it offered as FRAND AFAIK.

They were only slightly better off in terms of mobile IP than Google was pre-Moto purchase; which is to say, nothing really essential.

"right" is subjective. For Jobs, doing "right" only applied to the corporation. Like they considered it right to send a fully armed assault team to storm Jason Chen's house AFTER they got their prototype back. A prototype they LOST due to their employee's own incompetence.

Are these kinds of fluff pieces actually paid for by Apple? I see a lot of them on tech sites, and I'm thinking they have to be. Apple is the same company that sues people for rectangular phones, we don't really need explanations for who they sue, we hear about it already.

Translation: "I hate Apple. I hate any evidence Apple exists. I hate any articles that remind me of Apple"

The title might have given you a clue that the article was about Apple - perhaps you should have simply skipped over it? Or read something on another site that props up your ego better? Many people find these articles interesting, so expect to see more of them on Ars.

On other tech news sites (maybe this one too), when the Apple haters whine again about why so many Apple articles, often you see the editors calmly point out that when there is Android or Windows news, especially a new OS release, there is a comparable flood of articles about those subjects that can be quantified by numbers versus Apple articles. Heck, on sites like Engadget and The Verge (which are also accused of being Mac fanboys by some) sometimes half a day's news feed is articles about new Android devices.

Of course, the proportions are not perceived that way by the tunnel-visioned haters.

Of course, the proportions are not perceived that way by the tunnel-visioned haters.

It's the proportion of Apple articles that are soley about Jobs, (roughly a third in this one) that detract from the more interesting parts that play second fiddle that are objectionable.

An afterword or side note on Cook's ideas about Jobs wouldn't be a problem, that everything revolves around the dead man, is. You'd almost wonder why they don't just have a simulacrim of the guy spewing quotes at the side of the stage at events like this.

Of course, the proportions are not perceived that way by the tunnel-visioned haters.

It's the proportion of Apple articles that are soley about Jobs, (roughly a third in this one) that detract from the more interesting parts that play second fiddle that are objectionable.

An afterword or side note on Cook's ideas about Jobs wouldn't be a problem, that everything revolves around the dead man, is. You'd almost wonder why they don't just have a simulacrim of the guy spewing quotes at the side of the stage at events like this.

Well, of course they are going to talk about Jobs, since it's not that long since he died, and this seems like a natural venue to talk about him. Having Cook talk about Jobs in the iPad-announcement or quarterly investor call seems strange.

And the main reason they talk about Jobs is because Mossberg and Swisher keep on mentioning him and asking about him. Cook seemed to be quite explicit that he's not Steve Jobs, and things will be different under his tenure because of that fact.

And yet I don't suspect that comments like your are paid for by Apple's competitors, even though I see them repeated many times in every Apple story. If I did think such a thing, I'd be good enough to look for proof before making an allegation like that. Y'know, basic decency and all that.

very much this. in the comments of every single apple story.

That was a non-generic and thoroughly exciting piece of news for everyone who did not attend the All Things D conference.

All the Apple bashing/defending aside, I just wanted to congratulate the writer on speculating on speculation, that's just a whole new class of rumor mongering.

Quote:

Predictably, Cook avoided questions about the company's upcoming announcements, but said that Apple plans to "double down on secrecy" regarding its upcoming products. Whether that will actually happen remains a mystery...